Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-korhonen-mip4-service-07
"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Mon, 05 January 2009 23:53 UTC
Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7833A6856; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAB13A6857 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:53:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sD3vdnuXRaoH for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CA13A65A5 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1LJzFo2wuE-0007ZT; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:53:08 -0500
Message-ID: <1D3D2B1299FA47D09EF633CEFD2AE489@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, ulf.s.nilsson@teliasonera.com
References: <EA1CC945E09A4F71BF15D64495ACAF0C@china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:52:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ZeLf12QdlIcafCY95MPG1mm6HbLZ8/pEoBaA vESOjGDHqUeUk3ki20GJlaUXhmxzCRUpVVPxPQ2X+KzdY7QNwS UwJj6pOQ7L2T+0MXu+3jLcBSh83WDUVovaxcpje6vM=
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-korhonen-mip4-service-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Just to let people know, version -07 addresses all of my comments on -06. Thanks, Spencer >I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-korhonen-mip4-service-06 > Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins > Review Date: 2008-12-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-24 > IESG Telechat date: (not known) > Summary: This draft is on the right track for publication as Informational > (should it be standards-track, if you're expecting this to be widely > deployed? But I'll leave that to the IESG). > > I do have comments, especially involving 2119 language. > > Comments: > > (Can Jouni's e-mail address really be > Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com > ?) > > 1. Introduction > > This document describes a Service Selection Extension for Mobile IPv4 > that is intended to assist home agents to make specific service > selections for the mobility service subscription during the > registration procedure. The service selection may affect home agent > routing decisions, Home Address assignment policies, firewall > settings, and security policies. The Service Selection extension > SHOULD be used in every Registration Request that makes a new > registration to the home agent. The Service Selection extension from > the Registration Request MAY be echoed back in the Registration > Reply. > > Spencer: I don't usually see 2119 normative language in the introduction > of Internet Drafts... at a minimum, these statements appear before the > requirements key words are introduced in section 2. I THINK most of these > requirements are restated later in the document anyway, so they could > probably be dropped here. > > In absence of a specifically indicated service the home agent MUST > act as if the default service, plain Internet access had been > requested. There is no absolute requirement that this default > service be allowed to all subscribers, but it is highly RECOMMENDED > in order to avoid having normal subscribers employ operator-specific > configuration values in order to get basic service. > > Some of the potential use-cases were listed earlier in this section. > The general aim is better manageability of services and service > provisioning from both operators and service providers point of view. > However, it should be understood that there are potential deployment > possibilities where selecting a certain service may restrict > simultaneous access to other services from an user point of view. > For example, services may be located in different administrative > domains or external customer networks that practice excessive > filtering of inbound and outbound traffic. > > Spencer: I wasn't clear on who this understanding is directed to - it > almost reads like you're warning users that bad things might happen if you > use a specific service, but surely the user specifies the service because > an operator requires this? > > 3. Service Selection Extension > > At most one Service Selection extension MAY be included in any Mobile > IPv4 Registration Request message. It SHOULD be included at least in > > Spencer: seems to be missing a qualifier: "When a non-default service is > selected, the Service Selection extension SHOULD be included ..."? > > Spencer: If this is qualified, could the SHOULD be a MUST? > > Spencer: If it remains as SHOULD, what happens if the Service Selection > extension is not included in the initial binding registration, but is > included in subsequent binding registrations? > > the Registration Request message that is sent for the initial binding > registration when the mobile node and the home agent do not have an > existing binding. The Service Selection extension MUST be placed in > the Registration Request message as follows: > > o When present the extension MUST appear after the MN-NAI extension, > if the MN-NAI is also present in the message > > o If the extension was added by the mobile node to a Registration > Request it MUST appear prior any authentication-enabling > extensions [RFC3344][RFC4721] > > Spencer (editorial): s/prior/before/ or s/prior/prior to/ > > o In the event the foreign agent adds the Service Selection > extension to a Registration Request, the extension MUST appear > prior to any Foreign-Home authentication-enabling extensions > [RFC3344] > > 4.1. Mobile Node Considerations > > A mobile node or its proxy representative MAY include the Service > Selection extension into any Registration Request message. The > Service Selection extension can be used with any mobile node > identification method. The extension is used to identify the service > to be associated with the mobility session and SHOULD only be > > Spencer: this seems to be more restrictive than previous text that allowed > the extension to be included in non-initial registration request > messages... > > included into the initial Registration Request message sent to a home > agent. If the mobile node wishes to change the selected service, it > is RECOMMENDED that the mobile node de-register the existing binding > > Spencer: why RECOMMENDED and not REQUIRED? RECOMMENDED means that home > agents must handle the case where the SHOULD isn't observed anyway. > > with the home agent before proceeding with a binding registration for > a different service. The provisioning of the service identifiers to > the mobile node or its proxy representative is out of scope of this > specification. > > 6. IANA Considerations > > A new Mobile IPv4 skippable Extension type is required for the > following new Extension described in Section 3. The Extension type > must be from the 'skippable Extension' range (128-255): > > Service Selection Extension is set to TBD > > A new Mobile IPv4 registration denied by home agent error code is > required. The error code must be allocated from the 'Error Codes > from the Home Agent' range (128-192): > > SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED is set to TBD > > Spencer: (if you revise this draft, you probably want to use "TBD1", > "TBD2", etc. so that it's clearer to IANA which "TBD" gets replaced with > each allocated value) > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-korho… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-k… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-k… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-k… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-k… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-korhonen-mi… Spencer Dawkins